I have familiarized myself with the Catholic defenses for Jesus's statement "Call no man Father" in Matthew 23.9 as I have had to defend my faith with my dear non-Catholic friends who are sincerely concerned and affected by my conversion to the Catholic faith in 2016. I have defended it based on what I have read, that it is a sacrificial fatherhood, out of love and care and not a power grab or lordship like the pharisees. It was demonstrated by Paul and Christ referencing some disciples as "son" or "children". But still I am inwardly uneasy, with so many other ways to address a priest, "Reverend, Pastor" why not go with these so there is no hint of blatant contradiction to the scriptures? Then last weekend during casual kitchen conversation, my 18 y/o Lutheran son stumps me "Mom, Jesus never allowed himself to be called 'Father' reserving that title only for God, then why is it okay for priest?" He allowed himself to be called 'Rabbi" (teacher), and "Lord" but never "Father", insisting this title be for God alone. Please help.

St. Paul refers to church members as his children in one verse. Then in the next, many translations have him literally calling himself their father. Of course, people who want to be offended will choose the translation that fits with their need to criticize the Catholic church.

There are many reasons why it's okay to call a priest 'father, but I find this one more difficult to dismiss because God Himself is calling mortal men "fathers".

Quote:

In Deuteronomy 5:16, God commands, "Honor your father and your mother, as the Lord your God commanded you; that your days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with you, in the land which the Lord your God gives you." God made this command after telling us to honor Him. With this in mind, it seems reasonable to conclude that God Himself considers others to be "fathers." Jesus upholds this commandment in Mark 7:9-13. In this passage, He berates the scribes and Pharisees who used traditions to rationalize not providing assistance to their fathers. Similarly, in Matthew 19:16-19, Jesus includes honoring one's human father as a prerequisite to attaining eternal life. A father is one who begets children. Biologically, to beget means to give the seed from which a child is conceived. A man begets and a woman conceives. In the act of begetting, the man shares in the attributes of God's fatherhood by participating in the creation of this new life. In turn, God is the author of life who actively creates a soul and infuses it into the child at the moment of conception. It is important to remember that a child does not choose its biological father. The father gives the child life. Just as God gives life to all men, and so deserves our honor and reverence, so a child owes its life to its father, and the father deserves honor from the child. There is a spiritual sense to fatherhood as well. In John 8, Jesus identifies spiritual fatherhood in terms of whom one honors. If we honor the father of lies, the devil is our father; if we honor God, He is our Father (vv. 44-49). Thus, Jesus calls the devil a father of some, and He calls God the Father of others. Those alive in Christ owe their new life to God. But those who are in bondage to sin owe their enslaved existence to Satan. In light of this passage, we can best understand what Jesus meant in Matthew 23:9.

If we are to take this literally we also cannot use the terms Teacher and Doctor (Latin origin for teacher)

Besides , it is then ironic that Pastor is acceptable to some then when Scripture in John 10 and Psalm 23 attribute that title to Jesus .

Also wanted to point out that the the Orthodox and Coptic churches both have no problem with the usage of the term Father and priests being called that . The ancient church understood this , it is only post the Reformation that this is being interpreted literally .

If we are to take this literally we also cannot use the terms Teacher and Doctor (Latin origin for teacher)

Besides , it is then ironic that Pastor is acceptable to some then when Scripture in John 10 and Psalm 23 attribute that title to Jesus .

Also wanted to point out that the the Orthodox and Coptic churches both have no problem with the usage of the term Father and priests being called that . The ancient church understood this , it is only post the Reformation that this is being interpreted literally .

And, of course, Anglicans are a motley crew; like a box of chocolates, you never know. But certainly Anglicans (carefully selected) call their priest "Father". I did today, 3 times.

If we are to take this literally we also cannot use the terms Teacher and Doctor (Latin origin for teacher)

Besides, it is then ironic that Pastor is acceptable to some then when Scripture in John 10 and Psalm 23 attribute that title to Jesus.

Also wanted to point out that the Orthodox and Coptic churches both have no problem with the usage of the term Father and priests being called that. The ancient church understood this, it is only post the Reformation that this is being interpreted literally.

A 'literal' interpretation means that you interpret it according to the way that the first generation of readers would have understood it. What you mean is a 'literalistic' interpretation.

For example, if I say 'you are pulling my leg', the literal interpretation of this expression is 'you are teasing me or telling me a joke', however, if you think it means that I am accusing you of grabbing one of my appendages, you aren't being literal, you are being literalistic.

As St Paul wrote to the Corinthians: "You have not many fathers; but by the gospel I have begotten you in Christ." (1Cor. 4:15).As Dr Leslie Rumble, M.S.C., S.T.D. wrote: "He knew quite well that in calling himself their spiritual father in Christ he was not violating any biblical prohibition."[Questions People Ask , Chevalier Books, 1979, #449]

Dear CRichards, Is your Lutheran son familiar with the reality of how Jesus founded His Catholic Church?That should provide much food for thought and lead to further examination..

Peter was singularly chosen by Christ to head His universal Church, and the primacy of Peter is shown clearly by Christ Himself:All four promises to Peter alone"You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church." (Mt 16:18) "The gates of hell will not prevail against it."(Mt 16:18) “I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19) "Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven." (Mt 16:19) [Later to the twelve].

Thus God the Son established His own one and only True Church. Thus it matters enormously, because only Christ’s Catholic Church has the fullness of truth in Her dogmas and doctrines. St. Ignatius of Antioch simply believed what God says: “Where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” (Letter to the Smyrneans, 8,2, A.D. 107).

The evidence shows that Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled. At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and "the whole assembly fell silent" (Acts 15:7-12). Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognized by Peter (Gal 1:I8).

Jesus emphasised: “I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you." (John 14:15-18) "The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in My name, He will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you." (John 14:26) "But when He comes, the Spirit of truth, He will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but He will speak what He hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify Me, because He will take from what is Mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is Mine; for this reason I told you that He will take from what is Mine and declare it to you." (John 16:13-15).

As God the Holy Spirit is expressly named to “guide you to all truth” – that truth which God the Son had commanded them to teach all nations -- there can be no real question as to error in dogmatically declared teaching.

In my view, it is difficult to be a mother or a father unless you live with the person and care for them. If you live with somebody, it could be like a foster father/mother or an adoptive father/mother. If you don't live with them, at the very best it is like being a distant relative. My auntie lives 50 miles away. She occasionally pops in. I've never lived with my aunt. If you are purely a friend, it could sometimes feel as close as a distant aunt or uncle. I do have queries about this myself. I don't know if it is right to take a false title as it could create a relationship of trust with strangers. Sometimes strangers don't deserve this relationship of trust. It can create false trust. I don't fully accept it. Technically speaking, you are distantly related.

Why would it be wrong? It is one of his official titles. Secular journalists do it all the time, they also refer to him as 'His Holiness.' If a non-Catholic can use this title in good conscience simply as a sign of respect, even if they don't actually believe in the sacred nature of the office, no harm no foul.

I have familiarized myself with the Catholic defenses for Jesus's statement "Call no man Father" in Matthew 23.9 as I have had to defend my faith with my dear non-Catholic friends who are sincerely concerned and affected by my conversion to the Catholic faith in 2016. I have defended it based on what I have read, that it is a sacrificial fatherhood, out of love and care and not a power grab or lordship like the pharisees. It was demonstrated by Paul and Christ referencing some disciples as "son" or "children". But still I am inwardly uneasy, with so many other ways to address a priest, "Reverend, Pastor" why not go with these so there is no hint of blatant contradiction to the scriptures? Then last weekend during casual kitchen conversation, my 18 y/o Lutheran son stumps me "Mom, Jesus never allowed himself to be called 'Father' reserving that title only for God, then why is it okay for priest?" He allowed himself to be called 'Rabbi" (teacher), and "Lord" but never "Father", insisting this title be for God alone. Please help.

This video response is quite robust. Perhaps I'm partial to a defense that mentions (in this case at least in the accompanying text) hyperbole or hyperbolic, a concept seemingly lost on so many critics of Catholicism, yet one that I learned in high school if not earlier in junior high school.

I have familiarized myself with the Catholic defenses for Jesus's statement "Call no man Father" in Matthew 23.9 as I have had to defend my faith with my dear non-Catholic friends who are sincerely concerned and affected by my conversion to the Catholic faith in 2016. I have defended it based on what I have read, that it is a sacrificial fatherhood, out of love and care and not a power grab or lordship like the pharisees. It was demonstrated by Paul and Christ referencing some disciples as "son" or "children". But still I am inwardly uneasy, with so many other ways to address a priest, "Reverend, Pastor" why not go with these so there is no hint of blatant contradiction to the scriptures? Then last weekend during casual kitchen conversation, my 18 y/o Lutheran son stumps me "Mom, Jesus never allowed himself to be called 'Father' reserving that title only for God, then why is it okay for priest?" He allowed himself to be called 'Rabbi" (teacher), and "Lord" but never "Father", insisting this title be for God alone. Please help.

The context tells us that it is a question of authority. Brothers do not call each other "father." Among believers, the greatest is the one who serves just as Jesus came to serve not to be served. The servants of Jesus serve him and serve one another; they do not exalt themselves to positions where they are Teachers of all or Leaders of all or Father of all. They know they are servants and they have one who is their high authority - the Father, and they have one who is their Teacher and Leader, Jesus. Because of this, none of them are to be exalted in a position above one another. In fact, the way of Christ is to do the opposite and to serve others as higher than themselves. Paul said the same thing. So because they are brothers who serve one another, as Jesus said, they call no one father except our God and Father in heaven. They do not seek positions of authority but how to serve one another.

You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many. Matthew 20

The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat.... do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10 Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. 11 But the greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted.

The use doesn’t exclude calling one’s ancestors "father," as is shown in Acts 7:2, where Stephen refers to "our father Abraham," or in Romans 9:10, where Paul speaks of "our father Isaac."

"I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:14–15).

By referring to these people as their spiritual sons and spiritual children, Peter, Paul, and John imply their own roles as spiritual fathers. Since the Bible frequently speaks of this spiritual fatherhood, we Catholics acknowledge it and follow the custom of the apostles by calling priests "father." Failure to acknowledge this is a failure to recognize and honor a great gift God has bestowed on the Church: the spiritual fatherhood of the priesthood.

Jesus, according to Luke 14:26 spoke: "If any man comes to me, without hating his father and mother and wife and children and brethren and sisters, yes, and his own life too, he can be no disciple of mine." Do you think Jesus is commanding us to hate our fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters and our own lives? Please say no. Oh, by the way, didn't Jesus also say to call no man on earth "father," yet here he himself is doing it?

I recall at some point in my formal education learning about hyperbole - an obvious and intended exaggeration such as I could eat a horse or I just bought enough food to feed an army.

Please watch this well done video. Maybe I'm partial to a defense that mentions (in this case at least in the accompanying text) hyperbole or hyperbolic, a concept seemingly lost on so many.

Jesus is not commanding against calling a male parent "father" or calling an educator "teacher." Nor is he commanding us to hate any other human being.